Scott Walker attacks Professors and Unions in his new budget

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the
professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial
difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three
years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions.
People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process.

During the probationary period, almost all colleges can choose not to renew faculty contracts and terminate faculty without any reason or cause.
Throughout this time, senior professors and administrators evaluate the work of new faculty-teaching, research and service before deciding whether or
not to recommend tenure. The most recent survey of American faculty shows that, in a typical year, about one in five probationary faculty members was
denied tenure and lost his or her job.

Faculty members remain accountable after achieving tenure. Tenured faculty at most colleges and universities are evaluated periodically-among other
things, for promotion, salary increases and, in some cases, merit increases. Grant applications and articles for publication are routinely reviewed on
their merit by peers in the field. If basic academic tenets and due process rights are observed, this kind of accountability is wholly appropriate. A
finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

People should read that whole link. I'd bet many commenting on this thread have a misconceived idea of how tenure works. Here's another good one that
appears to be circulating on this thread.

MYTH:

Professors say they need to have tenure to have academic freedom which sounds too much like the freedom to do or say whatever they want, no matter how
radical or inconsequential. Anyway, the Constitution protects academic freedom; you don't need tenure for that.

REALITY:

Academic freedom is important because society needs "safe havens," places where students and scholars can challenge the conventional wisdom of
"academic freedom," any field-art, science, politics or whatever. This is not a threat to society; it strengthens society. It puts ideas to the test
and teaches students to think and defend their ideas. But how many professors would feel free to talk about controversial ideas if they knew their
jobs were on the line?

Tenure gives faculty the independence to speak out about troubling matters and to challenge the administration on issues of new curriculum and
quality.

The problem could be academic: For example, an untenured professor was fired by the University of Georgia when she blew the whistle on the
administration's practice of changing grades and waiving academic standards for athletes. (She was reinstated after a lengthy court battle.)

The problem could be political. In Oklahoma, a number of state legislators attempted to have Anita Hill fired from her university position because of
her testimony before the U.S. Senate. If not for tenure, professors could be attacked every time there's a change in the wind.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but the Constitution does not guarantee that you can't be fired for expressing your beliefs as part
of your job. The courts could decide either way --- and the burden of proof shifts sharply to the professor.

What if dismissed professors always had to go to the courts to seek fair treatment? The governance process under tenure may seem cumbersome, but it
doesn't hold a candle to the time and expense of moving disputes from the college board room to the courtroom.

Remember: There are limits to tenure. Tenure does not mean that a science teacher can hold students to his or her belief that the sun revolves around
the earth, and it doesn't mean professors can act unprofessionally.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

So one pet theory obviates all of the others?

Not sure what you mean by that. I acknowledged that while the left may have had some support behind the truther movement, it is now largely maintained
by the right. Most of the left has accepted the mainstream account of the events of that day. Or at least don't believe that the government was in on
it.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It is those goofy classes that conservatives object to and the liberals cite as being us "anti-intellectual." That's a crock. The left holds up this
pablum as being "intellectual" and then claims that the right is anti-intellectual when we point out that it's nonsensical crap.

Those goofy electives are just electives though. You can't major in that course of study. It's just a class to fill your elective requirement. It's a
class designed to expand your thinking a bit and consider different viewpoints. You know, what conspiracy theorists are always demanding of the public
at large? The content might be silly or whatever, but again it isn't a major. It's just one class.

Find me a conservatives that object to calculus and you might have something. Until then, all you have is claims that objecting to a course on
speaking to your vagina is anti-intellectualism.

This is a strawman. I didn't say that conservatives object to basic math like Calculus (yes Calc is rather basic, compared to some of the more
theoretical maths). Heck, I didn't say they objected to math at ALL. Besides that, you still haven't offered up proof of your original claims about
being leftist indoctrination centers.

The proofs are all around you. Bill Ayers is a great example of leftist trends in academia. You have to admit that the hard sciences--engineering,
physics, chemistry, tend to be conservative people and the humanities tend to be liberal people.

Although I disagree with their causal conclusion, even Mother Jones admits that academia is left of center:
www.motherjones.com...
ducation-liberal-research-indoctrination.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

So one pet theory obviates all of the others?

Not sure what you mean by that. I acknowledged that while the left may have had some support behind the truther movement, it is now largely maintained
by the right. Most of the left has accepted the mainstream account of the events of that day. Or at least don't believe that the government was in on
it.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

I disagree with you. The left still maintains that Bush is responsible for 9/'11. They haven't discarded that one iota.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

So one pet theory obviates all of the others?

Not sure what you mean by that. I acknowledged that while the left may have had some support behind the truther movement, it is now largely maintained
by the right. Most of the left has accepted the mainstream account of the events of that day. Or at least don't believe that the government was in on
it.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

I disagree with you. The left still maintains that Bush is responsible for 9/'11. They haven't discarded that one iota.

Well like I said, prove it. Produce a left maintained website that insists this. I've seen many blame Bush for lying about going into Iraq, but not
actually BLAMING him for 9/11.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

So one pet theory obviates all of the others?

Not sure what you mean by that. I acknowledged that while the left may have had some support behind the truther movement, it is now largely maintained
by the right. Most of the left has accepted the mainstream account of the events of that day. Or at least don't believe that the government was in on
it.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

I disagree with you. The left still maintains that Bush is responsible for 9/'11. They haven't discarded that one iota.

Well like I said, prove it. Produce a left maintained website that insists this. I've seen many blame Bush for lying about going into Iraq, but not
actually BLAMING him for 9/11.

Christ. Just hit the September 11 forum at Democratic Underground and you see that it is awash with conspiracy theories about Bush causing 9/11.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

They abound. Heck, let's look at some of the required courses for Willamette College for example:

Required Willamette Courses

The Willamette catalogue under the heading, “General Education Requirements,” states that an undergraduate “must complete at least five
‘Modes of Inquiry Courses,’ which fulfills the multicultural and ethics requirements, and are broken up into subcategories such as
‘Understanding Society,’ and ‘Analyzing Arguments, Reasons, and Values.’”[2]

Among the “Analyzing Arguments, Reasons and Values” courses is the following course from the Religious Studies Department:
REL 334 (AR) Liberation Theology and Social Change
A survey of Third World (particularly Latin American) liberation theology and its potential and actual impact on movements for human freedom in the
North American context (e.g., those working on Black, Hispanic and Native American issues, feminism, gay liberation and economic justice). Analyzing
Arguments, Reasons, and Values. Alternate years, Spring. Wallace
Liberation Theology is a doctrine that integrates Marxist ideology with the Christian faith. “Economic justice” is an ideological term for Marxist
views that serve to morally condemn the free market system. “Gay liberation” is a political agenda, not an academic concept. Feminism is a
political ideology. This is not an academic course examining liberation theology from a disinterested and scholarly perspective. It is a program of
advocacy and indoctrination.

Another course offered to fulfill the “Analyzing Arguments, Reasons and Values” requirement for the undergraduate degree is offered by the
American Ethnic Studies Department:
AES 351 (AR) Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights and the Environment
[Cross-listed with ANTH 351]

This course focuses upon environmental and human rights issues affecting indigenous peoples worldwide. Using the cross-cultural, comparative and
field-based perspectives that distinguish anthropology, this course examines some of the most pressing problems facing the world’s indigenous
peoples, explores strategies used by these groups in facing human rights and environmental violations, and offers students the opportunity to study
about and take action on these issues….(Emphasis added.)
This course explicitly states its intention to recruit students to its political agendas. An academic course would not assume that non-indigenous
individuals, i.e., Willamette students, should intervene in the affairs of indigenous peoples, for example. This course quite obviously violates
Willamette’s Policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibility: “Students should not be forced by the authority inherent in the instructional role to
make particular personal choices as to political action or their own roles in society.”

A third required course is offered by the Interdisciplinary Studies Department:
IDS 327 (AR; W) The American Story and the Legacy of Vietnam

Language has become a problem in the modern world: its expanding role as a means of global communication has, at the same time, accented the barriers
to human understanding posed by competing ideologies concealed within languages. As a result, power, rather than argument or persuasion, has become
the normal means for achieving national and personal ends. This seminar addresses, through selected case studies, the relationship of language and
power in the American tradition and their impact on politics and ethics. The Vietnam War is offered as a case study. Writing-centered. Analyzing
Arguments, Reasons, & Values. Narrative and Ethics in the American Tradition Cluster. Alternate years, spring. Collins, McGaughy
The professors listed for this course are Catherine Collins and Lane C. McGaughy. Catherine Collins is a Professor of Rhetoric and Media Studies. Lane
McGaughy is a Professor of Religion and Religious Studies. Both lack any apparent qualification to teach an academic course involving such complex and
controversial geo-political issues as the war in Vietnam.

According to its catalogue description, the course presumes that “power rather than argument or persuasion has become the normal means for achieving
national and personal ends” and uses the Vietnam War, a controversial episode from the recent past, as its historical text. In other words, the
presumption of the course is a political thesis – and a rather extreme one – that America’s resort to force in Vietnam could have been avoided
in favor of persuasion. Moreover, the title of the course implies that this is a “legacy” which has had an impact on American policy ever since.
Rather than a disinterested inquiry into the nature and causes of the war in Vietnam and American policy this course is a political argument.

The General Education Requirement can also be fulfilled with an “Understanding Society Component.” Here is one of the courses that students may
take to fulfill the requirement, offered by the American Ethnic Studies Department:

AES 114 (US) Race and Ethnic Relations
[Cross-listed with SOC 114]

The nature of majority–minority relations in society are explored with a focus on the causes and consequences of prejudice, discrimination and
racism, with special attention on the increasing importance of institutionalized racism in contemporary American society. Attention is also paid to
how race relations have changed over time and the differences in the experiences of immigrant and racial minorities. Studies on race relations are
explored from a variety of theoretical perspectives.
This is not an academic inquiry into race relations but a course designed to indoctrinate students in a leftwing ideology of race. The
course description specifies the focus of the course as “the increasing import

Even 1 small ounce of gold is more valuable than a teacher or college 'degree'.

Tell that to the doctors that save peoples lives or the people that taught those doctors. Walker is such a tool he should have snap on stamped on his
forehead. You gotta admit the Koch brothers got their moneys worth with walker.

I highly doubt that the basket weaving and womyn's studies profs are creating life saving doctors.

I see you have the same problem that Neo has please reread his post and try to figure out what was wrong with his post.

Even 1 small ounce of gold is more valuable than a teacher or college 'degree'.

Tell that to the doctors that save peoples lives or the people that taught those doctors. Walker is such a tool he should have snap on stamped on his
forehead. You gotta admit the Koch brothers got their moneys worth with walker.

I highly doubt that the basket weaving and womyn's studies profs are creating life saving doctors.

I see you have the same problem that Neo has please reread his post and try to figure out what was wrong with his post.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

So one pet theory obviates all of the others?

Not sure what you mean by that. I acknowledged that while the left may have had some support behind the truther movement, it is now largely maintained
by the right. Most of the left has accepted the mainstream account of the events of that day. Or at least don't believe that the government was in on
it.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

I disagree with you. The left still maintains that Bush is responsible for 9/'11. They haven't discarded that one iota.

Well like I said, prove it. Produce a left maintained website that insists this. I've seen many blame Bush for lying about going into Iraq, but not
actually BLAMING him for 9/11.

Christ. Just hit the September 11 forum at Democratic Underground and you see that it is awash with conspiracy theories about Bush causing 9/11.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Few people on the left believe in chem-trails or Conspiracies? Really? Have you been on ATS at all? LOL.

That wasn't what I said. The left has its own share of silly conspiracies, but the good BULK of conspiracies originate from the right, because many
have mixed that "the government is coming to get you!" shtick into the conspiracy.
...

Nonsense. Look at all of the 9/11 was Bush's fault, war for oil, Halliburton mind control machines. It may sway depending on who is in office, but
those huge reams of conspiracy theories since 9/11 at least have been from the left.

The truther movement is currently maintained by crazies on the right, not the left. The left has moved on away from that conspiracy theory. At least
that is what I've seen from its supporters on ATS. Feel free to produce a truther website produced by a progressive that proves me wrong
though.

So one pet theory obviates all of the others?

Not sure what you mean by that. I acknowledged that while the left may have had some support behind the truther movement, it is now largely maintained
by the right. Most of the left has accepted the mainstream account of the events of that day. Or at least don't believe that the government was in on
it.

Still waiting on that proof of colleges being liberal indoctrination centers by the way.

I disagree with you. The left still maintains that Bush is responsible for 9/'11. They haven't discarded that one iota.

Well like I said, prove it. Produce a left maintained website that insists this. I've seen many blame Bush for lying about going into Iraq, but not
actually BLAMING him for 9/11.

Christ. Just hit the September 11 forum at Democratic Underground and you see that it is awash with conspiracy theories about Bush causing 9/11.

This is again just highlighting various electives offered at a college. How come it doesn't show ALL the electives offered to compare against the load
of liberal biased electives versus general electives? Just cherry pick the worst contenders and pretend like that is indicative of the overall course
load of one's elective coursework. In other words disinformation propaganda. THREE electives from ONE college is NOT evidence of a wide spread pattern
of liberal indoctrination.

This is again just highlighting various electives offered at a college. How come it doesn't show ALL the electives offered to compare against the load
of liberal biased electives versus general electives? Just cherry pick the worst contenders and pretend like that is indicative of the overall course
load of one's elective coursework. In other words disinformation propaganda. THREE electives from ONE college is NOT evidence of a wide spread pattern
of liberal indoctrination.

They are on part of the required list and there was a hell of a lot more. You do realize that there is a 7500 symbol/letter per post limit, right?

One of these is Alan Wolfe, a well-known academic liberal who recently wrote in The New York Times, “I’ve taught in at least two universities
known for their leftism, and I know full well that those who teach at them strenuously oppose hiring conservatives and treat students who venerate the
military, for example, as misguided…Left-wing domination of academia is an obvious fact…”

Conservatives hate our University system, even though it's considered to be one of the greatest features of our nation.

By whom? See, from what I hear, the Left cries about the cost and how it should be "free" for everyone and that everyone "deserves" to go to college.
On the Right, you hear concerns about what is being taught, the types of individuals doing the teaching, the inefficiency of the DOE, etc. In the
middle (your average American), they're stuck dealing with underperforming schools that cost too much and force children to take courses that are
unnecessary for life (and then don't get taught things that are, like how to manage personal finances).

So, remind me again, who exactly thinks about America as a nation and says, "Oh, but their college system is outstanding!?"

Yes, we have SOME good programs for doctors, engineers, and such that often can't be found in other countries, but I would argue that even those are
slipping.

That paper is flawed because the author proves his point through anecdotes. There isn't a statistical analysis of all the coursework compared to
political leanings being presented, whether neutral, left, or right leaning. It's just examples of the author's experiences. Albeit, he appears to be
educated on the subject, but that leaves one to question why he presented his findings in such a way. I don't care about the individual courses
offered that promote leftist ideology. I care about the overall leanings of ALL the classes offered.

He quotes liberal academics themselves who admit the issue:

The article is also from 2006 during the height of the Iraq involvement.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.